DSS Screening of SANs: Odinkalu Counters Akinboro, Says Rule Has Been in Place Since 2022

Prominent human rights lawyer and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Chidi Odinkalu, has pushed back against criticism by former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) General Secretary, Aare Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN, over the security screening of newly cleared Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) by the Department of State Services (DSS).

In a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), Odinkalu dismissed Akinboro’s position as “factually inaccurate,” asserting that the security vetting requirement was not new and had been in effect since 2022 under former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola.

“These people are short of candour,” Odinkalu wrote. “The rules requiring screening of SAN candidates by DSS, EFCC, and ICPC were made by Olukayode Ariwoola in 2022. They governed SAN conferment in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Rather than object, folks saw them and applied.”

Odinkalu questioned the sudden opposition, pointing out that judicial nominees in Nigeria have long been subject to DSS screening without resistance. “Why are they objecting to the screening of SAN candidates by SSS? What do they have to hide?” he asked.

He also challenged the idea that the legal profession in Nigeria is fully independent, calling that notion largely aspirational. “The Nigerian Bar Association is an NGO with statutory privileges,” he said. “Those who enjoy the privilege of a parastatalized Bar should not mislead the public when they know better. It’s dishonest.”

Odinkalu emphasized that the General Council of the Bar, the Council of Legal Education, the Body of Benchers, and other regulatory institutions governing the profession are themselves government-controlled or influenced, with built-in majorities from government institutions.

His comments come in response to a strong statement issued earlier this week by Akinboro, who condemned the DSS screening of SAN designates as an “intrusion into the independence of the legal profession.”

“The conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria is not a political appointment, nor is it an executive privilege,” Akinboro stated. “It is a professional recognition rooted in the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and administered solely by the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC).”

He argued that the LPPC’s internal vetting process was already rigorous and sufficient, warning that allowing external agencies like the DSS to interfere could set a dangerous precedent.

“If we allow institutions outside the profession to insert themselves into its core processes without legal basis, we open the door to a precedent that may one day compromise not only the rank of SAN but also the independence of our courts, our appointments, and ultimately, our ability to dispense justice without fear or favour,” Akinboro cautioned.

He urged the NBA, LPPC, and the Body of Benchers to take a firm stand against the development, stating: “The legal profession must resist every attempt to muscle the Bar. To remain silent is to acquiesce, and acquiescence today may cost us the profession we hold dear tomorrow.”

While Akinboro’s criticism initially received support from some lawyers, others suggested that if he were to become Bar President, he might not only accept the DSS screening practice but possibly justify its necessity—an implication that Odinkalu’s intervention seeks to pre-empt.

The debate continues to stir reactions within the legal community, with both sides accusing the other of undermining the profession’s credibility or misrepresenting its regulatory structure.